<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2016 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Three types of organizational structures',
	'<{subtitle}>' => 'Written in <span title="Principles of Business Management">BUS 1101</span> of <a href="http://www.uopeople.edu/">University of the People</a>, finalised on 2016-12-28',
	'<{copyright year}>' => '2016',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<p>
	There are many types of structures that an organization might have.
	Each of them comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.
	Let&apos;s look at the benefits and drawbacks of three (or rather, five) of the more modern structures.
</p>
<h2>Matrix organizations</h2>
<p>
	One of the biggest challenges for employees in a matrix organization is the fact that they have to report to multiple managers.
	With employees directly reporting to two or more supervisors, these supervisors need to be highly coordinated with one another to make sure that they&apos;re giving consistent orders.
	Otherwise, employees may be given orders from different managers that are very difficult to follow in unison.
	Even worse, orders from different managers can outright conflict.
	Employees can&apos;t follow these orders because they&apos;re mutually exclusive.
	This causes ambiguity and confusion as to what the employee should do.
</p>
<p>
	This problem can be avoided with high levels of communication and coordination between department managers and project managers though.
	If these managers can stay on the same page, they can have a much clearer picture of where to lead employees and they can put up a unified front.
	In that way, instructions from either manager that a given employee reports to can give orders consistent with the orders given by the other manager, and the employee will be able to follow the lead of both managers simultaneously.
</p>
<p>
	There are clearly challenges in leading a matrix organization, as well as challenges in working in a poorly-lead matrix organization.
	However, these challenges are not without reward.
	Organizations with a matrix structure are able to realize the efficiency benefits of specialization and being organized based on function with the product-centric benefits of having departments dedicated to each product.
	This allows them to boost their products&apos; quality while minimizing costs.
	If managed correctly, a matrix organization has a lot of power and flexibility.
</p>
<h2>Boundaryless organizations</h2>
<p>
	The benefits and drawbacks of working in a boundaryless organization depends on what type of boundaryless organization that it is.
	There are three main types of boundaryless organizations.
</p>
<h3>Modular organizations</h3>
<p>
	In a modular organization, the organization is considered boundaryless because the organization essentially becomes a module of the greater market environment, as if the the market is an organization and the actual organization is just a few departments of it.
	These modular organizations outsource much of their labor needs, relying on other organizations to perform functions that are deemed not to be vital.
	In this way, the outer boundary of the organization in some ways doesn&apos;t exist.
</p>
<p>
	In this type of organization, you wouldn&apos;t have to take care of many sorts of tasks in-house.
	This can save a lot of effort, both for management and even just for general employees.
	Employees can focus solely on the tasks that haven&apos;t been outsourced, making their jobs simpler.
</p>
<p>
	However, a in a modular organization, employees are required to specialize more.
	There are less tasks to accomplish, so employees have to spend more time on the same type of task throughout the day.
	This can be a bit monotonous and unfulfilling.
	Additionally, employees might know a better way to accomplish a task, but have zero influence on that task because it&apos;s been outsourced to an entirely different company.
	In this way, employees are not able to make use of their knowledge to improve their company, which can likewise be frustrating.
</p>
<h3>Strategic alliances</h3>
<p>
	A strategic alliance is considered to be a boundaryless organization as well.
	However, boundaries very much still do exist in such an alliance.
	In some ways, there may be no boundaries between the two or more organizations involved in the alliance, making them in some ways a larger entity, but the boundaries within this combined entity and between this combined entity and the outside market still do very much exist.
	The combined entity is missing one major boundary, but the others are still intact.
	Calling this greater entity a boundaryless organization is a bit misleading; it would be like taking one wall out of an apartment complex that separates two adjoining apartments, then saying that the two units have no walls.
	It&apos;s simply not true; the newly-combined units are still separated from the rest of the existing units by the walls that they still do have.
	Likewise, the walls within the apartments that (for example) separate the bedrooms and the kitchens still exist.
	Only one wall is missing in the entire combined pair.
</p>
<p>
	In a way, the advantages of working in a company that in in a strategic alliance are similar to the advantages of working in a modular organization.
	There are less outsourced responsibilities, and they get outsourced to less companies, but the basic premise is the same: your company focuses on what they do well and lets another company do what your company isn&apos;t quite as good at.
	Again, this makes jobs simpler, as this delegation of effort reduces the number of tasks that each employee must complete, allowing (but also requiring) them to specialize more.
</p>
<p>
	Being in a strategic alliance is in some ways a middle ground between being a full modular organization and being a standard organization with a more traditional structure.
	The disadvantages of a strategic alliance are therefor basically the same as those of a modular organization, but those disadvantages are less pronounced.
	However, the advantages are also basically a less pronounced version of the advantages of a modular organization.
</p>
<h3>Eliminating barriers within</h3>
<p>
	The third way that an organization can be considered boundaryless is to eliminate their internal boundaries.
	This opens up communication and collaboration between employees.
	The eliminated boundaries could take the form of something in the organizational structure, such as traditional management layers, or it could take the form of something in the physical structure, such as walls between departments.
	Employees in this type of boundaryless organization are encouraged to actively take responsibility for responding to situations and may change which role that they fill depending on the current need of the organization.
</p>
<p>
	Removing internal barriers can be a huge relief for employees.
	Employees can feel more in touch with what&apos;s going on in the company and why, and they can feel like they&apos;re a part of it enough to feel comfortable reporting bad news when it pops up and needs to be dealt with.
	Employees may also feel more empowered, and be able to take care of tasks themselves when these tasks come along, even if those tasks aren&apos;t a part of their formal job descriptions.
</p>
<p>
	Without barriers though, employees are likely under heavier watch.
	Without communication barriers, you may be reporting directly to those in charge of the whole company on a daily basis.
	You&apos;ll have a better idea of what they expect from you, which is highly advantageous, but you&apos;ll also feel more like any little mistake will be seen.
	Additionally, you&apos;ll likely be expected to switch tasks as needed, performing in roles that you might not view as actually being a part of your job.
	This can be great for some people, adding interest and variety, but other employees may prefer structure and predictability that an organization without internal barriers might lack.
</p>
<h2>Learning organizations</h2>
<p>
	The biggest cost in maintaining the environment necessary for a learning organization to thrive is the cost of experimentation and failure.
	For a learning organization to thrive, it needs to be open to new ideas.
	This means allowing employees to try new things on company time, which often times may lead nowhere.
	Additionally, employees can&apos;t be afraid of failure, or they won&apos;t try new things.
	Learning organizations need to reward success while not penalizing the inevitable failures.
	That way, employees can try whatever they think will lead the company somewhere useful, knowing that if it doesn&apos;t work out, they&apos;re no worse off than they were before.
</p>
<p>
	With high risk comes high return though.
	Learning organizations are able to innovate, creating new ideas and creating new markets.
	Their greatest strength is their ability to generate new knowledge, though they also make good use of existing and acquired knowledge as well.
</p>
<h2>My thoughts</h2>
<p>
	Personally, I would prefer working in a learning organization.
	I love opportunities to try new things, and I strongly feel that knowledge is power and that knowledge should be freedom.
	In many cases, corporations abuse knowledge to create artificial monopolies, but being employed with an ethical learning organization would be fun, rewarding, and fulfilling.
	I love to experiment and discover new ways of doing things.
	I love testing my limits and testing the limits of other things.
	In daily life, I often find myself testing corner cases of various things that I come across, learning partially how they work.
	Sometimes I find that things aren&apos;t well built and don&apos;t do well with unexpected input, but other times, I discover new features, new ways of using a tool, or a way to streamline an activity.
	In any case, experimenting and learning are very enjoyable to me and I&apos;d love to work for an organization that is able to ethically capitalize on that.
</p>
<p>
	I also view tradition as an enemy, often holding us back.
	A learning organization changes as knew knowledge is taken in, accounting for changes in the world and market, as well as new understandings of how the world and market already work.
	Instead, other types of organizations can be a bit rigid, doing things by the book &quot;just because that&apos;s the way we do things&quot;.
	It&apos;s counterproductive, stifling, and frustrating.
</p>
<div class="APA_references">
	<h2>References:</h2>
	<p>
		Carpenter, M., Bauer,T., Erdogan, B. (2010). Management Principles 1.1. Retrieved from <a href="https://my.uopeople.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=100686"><code>https://my.uopeople.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=100686</code></a>
	</p>
</div>
END
);
